Selfhood and 'Gostly Menyng' in some Middle English Mystics

Selfhood and ‘Gostly Menyng’
in some Middle English Mystics:
Semiotic Approaches to
Contemplative Theology.




Tarjei Park

Pembroke College
University of Oxford





Selfhood and ‘Gostly Menyng’ in some Middle English Mystics:
Semiotic Approaches to Contemplative Theology.

Abstract

The thesis is a study of selfhood and ‘gostly menyng’ in the vernacular works of Walter Hilton, those associated with The Cloud of Unknowing, and Julian of Norwich: specifically, Hilton’s Scale of Perfection Books 1 and 2, Mixed Life, Eight Chapters on Perfection, and Of Angels’ Song, The Cloud of Unknowing, Deonise Hid Divinity, A Treatise of the Study of Wisdom called Benjamin, The Epistle on Prayer, The Discretion of Spirits, and The Book of Privy Counselling, and Julian’s A Revelation of Love.
The three authors only occasionally present direct teaching on contemplative psychology. Understanding their notions of selfhood must thus be made in the context of their presentation of contemplative praxis. To understand this comprehensively requires a close reading of the textual presentation itself, that is, how their language works in conveying their particular teachings. The sign-play in the texts often gives more pertinent information on its connoted plane than from its first-order denotation. This is both explicitly intentional, as with Hilton, and suggestively implicit, as with Julian. Furthermore, these connoted meanings will be shown to transgress those denoted. This is especially the case with Julian.
For these three authors the relationship between self and God typically functions as a dynamic grounded in the person of Christ. The union of the soul and God is rarely something understood in isolation from a governing Christ paradigm. What exactly is meant by self and God in Christ is to be understood by analysis of self as process in relation to the Trinity. All three authors give presentational accounts of what constitutes human selfhood. In each case these accounts are importantly different from one another. Equally, even though stemming from the common sign of ‘onyng’, the processes of self in apprehension of God mean for the authors quite different things.
In Book 1 of The Scale of Perfection Hilton gives the anchoress to whom it is addressed the rudiments of the contemplative life. In a series of hierarchical binary oppositions Hilton tells her that the active and contemplative lives correspond to outer and inner lives respectively. As the anchoress has withdrawn from the world so must she withdraw into her soul away from worldliness and fleshliness. Outer and inner lives correspond to ‘bodily’ and ‘gostly’ existence. Through conceptual and loving meditation on the life of Christ free from worldly thoughts and fleshly affections the rational eye of the soul will perceive the inner Christ. This is so because the soul is a created trinity of mind, reason, and will that mirrors the might, wisdom, and love that are the divine Trinity’s normative modes of disclosure. Spiritual sight and love of Christ in an interior move away from the physical senses ensures that the trinitarian soul is conformed to the image of the Trinity. In this contemplative process unsavoury knowledge is turned to wisdom, and fleshly love to ghostly love. The lantern of the soul is the faculty of reason by which Jesus is interiorly found. This is achieved by a concentration on the humanity of Jesus that leads to his divinity. In this Hilton presents a manifestly cognicentric process for contemplation that is characterized by the move from flesh to spirit. Thus the figure of Christ is ultimately presented by Hilton in a rather dehumanized form. The move from flesh to spirit is replicated in the way in which the signs used for contemplation work. Typically, physical images are used to convey spiritual sense. In the signification of these signs there is an emptying of physical denotation.
In Mixed Life Hilton repeats the binary oppositions used in Scale 1 of bodily and ghostly, outer and inner, active and contemplative, yet this time suggests that the secular gentleman to whom the epistle is addressed may move temporarily from one to the other. Although occasionally tempering the vigorous transcendentalism of Scale 1, Hilton maintains explicit hierarchy based on the opposition of flesh and spirit. The same oppositions are repeated in both Eight Chapters on Perfection where movement away from holy discipline is a movement to the flesh and in Of Angels’ Song where the soul is raised out of sensuality through purifying love of God so that the eye of the soul may behold ghostly things.
Scale 2 continues much of the thematic content of Scale 1 in detailing the soul’s reformation to the unfleshly state where it truly images the Trinity perichoretically present in the inner Christ perceived by the soul’s faculty of reason, the ‘gostly ei3e’. Much of Hilton’s teaching on contemplation is crystallized in the signification of this latter term. By denying denotation of a physical referent Hilton abstracts its connoted ghostly meaning from physical inference in the language itself. This is typical of a general textual procedure of such semiotic vacuity of the physical.
In his delineation of psychology in Scale 2 Hilton develops the notion of a lower part to the faculty of reason that deals with creaturely elements. This lower reason acts as a protective boundary between the cognicentric (sacred) and the flesh (profane) that reinforces the isolation of sapiential vision of Christ from physicality. For Hilton the quality of perception is dependent upon how flesh-governed a person is: in effect, one sees on the basis of what one is. Bodily existence corresponds to a closing of the eyes.
In many ways the Cloud author subverts much of the tradition as presented by Hilton by way of a dialectic that replaces a cognicentric system with an apophatic affectivity working in relation to ‘the cloud of unknowing’. In The Cloud of Unknowing the author presents the work of contemplation as the practice of monologic prayer that functions through a procedure of vacuity in signification. This vacuity is extended to a contemplative self-forgetting that entails denial of notions of interiority and transcendence as all such contemplative paradigms depend on physical denotation. Physicalist conception scatters the mind and undermines the unitive intent needed. For the Cloud author the work of contemplation may be characterized as a shift from fragmentation to union with God through accordance of will.
In the author’s mature work Priue Counseling the work of contemplation goes beyond the dialectic of word-centredness and volition presented in the Cloud of Unknowing to a form of Wesensmystik that more fundamentally grounds the play of absence and presence in the self’s apprehension of God in the being of the self. At the same time the author shows greater inclusion of cognition in contemplative union. Ultimately it is creaturely conception rather than cognition that is explicitly rejected by the author.
Julian of Norwich’s A Revelation of Love is perhaps the most complex text out of the three groups. Her text promotes a greater multivalency than those of Hilton or the Cloud author. This multivalency carries with it a greater sense of transgression than the more dialectical apophatism of the Cloud author. The textual Julian, that is, the textual first person singular, or authorial surrogate, becomes part of her visionary matrix. Aspects of the perceived visionary Christ become incorporated into Julian’s own sensory experience. In this sense there is a blurring, or rather continuous slippage of perspective in the course of her sixteen revelations. Julian sees Christ, sees through Christ, and sees as Christ.
Julian’s understanding of the self is largely informed by an Incarnationalism that sees the sensual self as inhabited by Christ. Through notions of mutual enclosure between God in Christ and the self Julian sees union with God as being more organically constitutional than something to be attained, as is more the case with Hilton and the Cloud author. In so doing she stretches the boundaries, as understood by the two authors, of what constitutes ghostly perception of Christ. Where in both Hilton and the Cloud author the figure of Christ functions as a means by which the contemplative moves from fragmented fleshly thoughts to a pure unitive apprehension, Julian’s Christology is typified by signs of physicality and procreation. This is most obviously the case with her image of Christ as mother, but it also manifests itself in her understanding of Christ having reunified the soul through his Incarnation to include sensuality. Julian has little need for protective boundaries that keep the spiritual abstracted from physicality.
All three authors deal with how their words are meant to be understood. Contemplative signs used by Hilton and the Cloud author tend to be governed by the binary opposition of flesh and spirit. Hilton sees his signs as gesturing to their referent, Christ, who is the true teacher in ‘gostlines’. The governing opposition of flesh and spirit in contemplation entails that Hilton’s understanding of Christ conforms to this opposition.
The Cloud author’s apophatism is not fundamentally a negation, but, rather, acts as a strategy within a clearly onto-theological framework. Where Hilton’s understanding of linguistic articulation is seen as a provisional, though initially reliable, gesture towards its referent, the Cloud author rejects absolutely conceptual approaches to God. Such rejection extends to language denoting interiority and transcendence, such a feature for Hilton.
Julian’s incorporation of aspects of the life of Christ into her presentation of her visionary perception extends to the form of the text itself. A paradigm sequence of Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection is maintained in the text that signifies on a variety of levels. The grounding paradigm of the life of Christ informs how Julian presents the life of her text, her understanding of the human condition, and her presentation of the contemplative life. Julian’s understanding of ‘gostly’ meaning is that it is ‘our lords menyng’. And this entails that the Incarnation pervades ‘gostlines’.
Selfhood and ‘Gostly Menyng’ in some Middle English Mystics:
Semiotic Approaches to Contemplative Theology.

Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1 Walter Hilton
1. The Scale of Perfection Book 1
(i) The Pattern of the Contemplative Life.
(ii) Psychology and the Role of the Flesh.
(iii) The Image of Jesus and the Image of Sin.
2. Mixed Life.
3. Eight Chapters on Perfection.
4. Of Angels’ Song.
5. The Scale of Perfection Book 2.
(i) The Pattern of the Contemplative Life.
(ii) Psychology and the Role of the Flesh.
(iii) Knowledge, Love and the Trinity.
Chapter 2 The Cloud Group
1. Introduction.
2. The Cloud of Unknowing.
(i) The Pattern of the Contemplative Life.
(ii) Psychology.
(iii) Language and the ‘Werk’ of Contemplation.
3. Deonise Hid Diuinite.
4. A Tretyse of Þe Stodye of Wysdome þat men clepen Beniamyn.
5. A Pistle of Discrecioun of Stirings.
6. A Tretis of Discrescyon of Spirites.
7. Þe Book of Priue Counseling.
8. Christ in the Cloud Group.
Chapter 3 Julian of Norwich
1. Introduction.
2. The Revelations.
3. Selfhood in A Revelation of Love.
Chapter 4 Contemplation and ‘Gostly Menyng’
1. Walter Hilton - The Inner Christ.
2. The Cloud Group - The Way of Unknowing.
3. Julian of Norwich - The Body of Christ, the Body of Bliss.
Bibliography

Selfhood and ‘Gostly Menyng’ in some Middle English Mystics:
Semiotic Approaches to Contemplative Theology.

Introduction
The Middle English Mystics of the fourteenth century are a group of writers who differ in the form and content of their writings as much as they cohere. Out of a somewhat larger group of writers and texts I shall concentrate on Walter Hilton, the group of texts associated with The Cloud of Unknowing, and Julian of Norwich: specifically, Hilton’s Scale of Perfection Books 1 and 2, Mixed Life, Eight Chapters on Perfection, and Of Angels’ Song, The Cloud of Unknowing, Deonise Hid Divinity, A Treatise of the Study of Wisdom called Benjamin, The Epistle on Prayer, The Discretion of Spirits, and The Book of Privy Counselling,1 and Julian’s A Revelation of Love. All these texts are vernacular texts that, in the case of Hilton and the Cloud author, tend to be written in epistolary form to aspiring contemplatives without apparent theological learning, or, in Julian’s case, a narrative form by one who, despite clear theological creativity, claims to be ‘a simple creature that cowde no letter’. In this regard the texts function as explanatory texts and do not intentionally depend upon extra-textual written sources for their meaning. There is thus a loose coherence between the texts in language, form, and theological scope. Such coherence, general as it is, does not pervade the content of the texts. The authors have particular contemplative agendas and repertoires.
Walter Hilton is perhaps the most traditional of our three authors. His texts echo with the voices of Augustine, Gregory the Great, Bernard, and Richard of St Victor. For Hilton the contemplative directs the sight of the soul interiorly to the inner Christ in whom the Trinity perichoretically dwells. From the point of view of study Hilton’s texts act as a foundation for the study of the Cloud author and Julian in that he represents an Augustinian storehouse of contemplative conventions.
The Cloud author is primarily driven by an apophatism that counters aspects of the more cataphatic Hilton, particularly the latter’s cognicentrism. Although he makes mention of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and claims that ‘Denis bookes’ will affirm all that he has said, the Cloud author is less concerned with the dynamics of agnosia per se than he is with the primacy of the loving will over the faculty of reason. In his psychological paradigm the author adopts a working version of the Augustinian (and Victorine) model assumed by Hilton, and this functions as the framework for his teaching on contemplation. Where he fundamentally diverges from Hilton is in his absolutist claims as to the unknowability of God and contemplation thus being singular volition.
Julian of Norwich’s text contains elements found in both Hilton and the Cloud author. However, hers is a truly original composition that abounds with the unconventional. Although formally a visionary, if contemplation centres on the soul’s union with God, she too must be seen as a writer on contemplation. Yet where Hilton and the Cloud author would see contemplation as a state of union to be achieved by contemplative means, Julian extends contemplative union via Christ’s Incarnation to a point where union with God is organically constitutional for the Christian.
In the ordering of the analysis of the texts one might thus superimpose a form of dialectical sequence that runs positive, negative, creative.
About the historical lives of the three authors little is known with certainty, and as I shall explain below, this will partly determine the methodological bias of this study. There is evidence that Walter Hilton spent substantial time in Cambridge where he studied Canon Law.2 From there he seems to have moved north to become an Augustinian Canon of Thurgarton in Nottinghamshire where he died on 24th March, 1396.3 Far less, if indeed anything, is known about the Cloud author. It has been variously conjectured that he was a hermit, a rural priest, a Carthusian, or even a Dominican.4 All such biographical speculation comes from possible inferences in the author’s texts that are essentially vague. Although not vague, a similar situation exists with the biographical data for Julian. Apart from possible mention in a few fourteenth- and fifteenth-century wills and mention in The Book of Margery Kempe,5 Julian’s text remains the source for details of her life. Such details as there are tell us nothing specific as to Julian’s theological milieu, but suggest that her revelations came to her on 8th May, 1373, when she was thirty and a half years old. A fifteenth century MS tells us that Julian ‘3it ys on lyfe anno domini millesimo ccccxiii’.6
The scarcity of historical data, especially for the Cloud author and Julian, means that I shall not be attempting to reconstruct a biographical backdrop to the texts. Whenever reference is made to the authors throughout this study it will be to the author as implied by the text.
The methodology employed in this study will be an eclectic, text-driven analysis. The determining influence on how the texts are interpreted will be the texts themselves. Thus possible theological influences on the texts will not operate as the lens by which the texts are viewed, but the texts themselves will constitute the lens by which cited and implied influences are seen.
The texts should not be interpreted by establishing an historically prior systematic framework which determines hermeneutic procedure. The texts are themselves the framework in which one might see earlier systems partially reflected. These earlier systems largely exist as conventional paradigms often of too fluid a nature to be directly attributable. If terminology is to be exactly understood by its originating systems, there would be the constant danger of a sort of ‘genetic fallacy’, that meaning is revealed at a beginning. Let us take Hilton as an example for a moment. It is indeed possible to infer quotation within the texts. However, understanding the plane of denotation is not dependent upon prior knowledge of specific classic texts. Hilton must not be read through the lens of Augustine, but Augustine through the lens of Hilton. This may be justified by a more obvious example. For all of the authors, and especially Hilton, the Bible exists as the most cited extra-textual authority. Clearly interpreting Hilton by the Bible would be unacceptable hermeneutically. Hilton’s quoted passages from Scripture become encoded by the governing signs of the text. This having been said, if on the connoted plane a sign emphatically recalls a specific system, such a system is to be recognized. The authority of our primary texts does not abstract them from the mainstream. Our texts appropriate signs operating within a cultural coding or langue. When psychologies are delineated within a text they are done so as much by a sense of conventional repertoire as by direct textual influence. What we cannot do is exactly define, in effect standardize, Hilton by analysis of the writings of Augustine. What we can do is recognize the originating paradigms. I shall thus refrain from ‘illegitimate totality transfer’7 in which, for example, Augustine’s trinitarian theory in his de Trinitate is imported fully into an understanding of Hilton. Rather, I shall attempt to record Hilton’s use of Augustine by the light of Hilton.
My concern will be to keep a brake on possible overcoding in the interpretation of the governing signs within the texts. Much valuable work has been done, particularly by editors of the texts,8 in identifying corresponding passages from Patristic and Scholastic sources, but, as I shall discuss in the following chapters, some scholars have in all likelihood exaggerated the importance of these passages as direct influences. This is most particularly so with Julian.
Rarely in the study of the English Mystics has the focus been on how the language of the texts works. Instead, studies have tended to concentrate on the historical precedents for the individual statements made within these texts, or have used contemporary or modern classifications of types of contemplative and/or mystical experience. In both these approaches the primary understanding of textual meaning has been that of understanding the texts as a sequence of propositions. By gleaning propositions from the text, either by inference or by abstracting quotations, it has been assumed that sense might be made of what the English Mystics are saying. I believe that none of this is really possible without having first looked for the strategies, codes, and patternings within the signs of any given text. Without having accomplished this, any abstraction of meaning from a text will also be a dilution and, indeed, a misrepresentation.
There is sometimes an implicit assumption that the theological analysis of texts need not function by way of any explicit critical theory. Theological analysis would thus be understood as distinguishable from, for example, ‘literary’ or ‘semiotic’ analyses. If a theological analysis of texts has shown a methodological self-consciousness, it has more often than not been in the field of Biblical Studies. In the study of the English Mystics such self-consciousness has been in evidence rather less often. What has sometimes been the case is that studies have implicitly assumed some sort of privileged access to the meaning of the text, with little or no acknowledgement being given to the way in which the analysis might determine the interpretation of the text. Obviously, theological analysis does not exist as a singular, neutral form of criticism. What is perhaps surprising however is the apparent lack of use of literary tools in the analysis of post-biblical texts. It has often been assumed, and is still assumed, that literary and linguistic analyses are a separate form of study to theology. Such separation, whether conscious or not, in the study of theological texts is questionable. As Kevin Hart has rightly stated: ‘Christian theology is always a study of signs.’9
In the texts of the English Mystics central or governing signs ground their teaching or reflection upon contemplation. These signs are not of stable or fixed signification. They have an incremental movement that makes them essentially context-dependent. Thus each sign has a dynamic within the text per se. Understanding central signs must involve tracing their signification.10
This study is primarily a study of the authors’ understanding of selfhood and ‘gostly menyng’. Apart from a few pockets of direct teaching in the texts, the authors convey their understandings of the self in their presentation of contemplation itself. Thus the scope of the textual subject matter will be necessarily broad. The analysis of selfhood will therefore be an analysis of the self in the teaching on contemplative process.
All three authors give presentational accounts of what constitutes human selfhood. In each case these accounts are importantly different from one another. Equally, even though stemming from the common sign of ‘onyng’, the processes of self in apprehension of God mean for the authors quite different things.
Obviously, for our authors there is little unease about talking of a self that exists independently of discourse. Such talk, however unpalatable for post-Wittgensteinian or post-Derridian persuasions, should not be anachronistically discounted. Not only shall I accept the Middle English authors’ notions of self as prelinguistic power-source on their own terms, but I shall myself strategically presume a ‘real’ subject, a subject of presence.
Each of the three authors makes use of a stratification of meaning, most commonly that of the ‘bodily’ and the ‘gostly’. This stratification is manifest within the same signifying chains. Bodily signs become the signifiers for ‘gostly’ meaning. The relationship between the physical and spiritual takes central place in the texts. This is clearly true even on a narrowly propositional reading, yet it is even more the case in the way in which the governing signs play. Yet often this latter activity would seem to subvert what would seem the most obvious propositional understanding taken from a denotative reading. This is particularly the case in Julian’s understanding of the role of the flesh.
I shall devote a chapter each to the texts of Walter Hilton, the Cloud group, and Julian of Norwich, and conclude with a fourth chapter dealing with ‘Contemplation and "Gostly Menyng".’
My analysis of Hilton will comprise a presentation of his teaching on contemplative praxis, his understanding of psychology and the role of the flesh, his notions of the ‘ymage of Iesu’ and the ‘ymage of synne’, and his developed understanding of knowledge and love in relation to the Trinity.
The chapter on the Cloud group will concern itself with the author’s delineation of the active and contemplative lives and the corresponding centres of devotional focus, his understanding of psychology, his treatment of language and the ‘werk’ of contemplation, and the place of Christ in his apophatic form of contemplation.
Analysis of Julian will be founded on an initial sequential reading of her sixteen revelations. From this I shall discuss her notions of the soul’s ‘substance’ and ‘sensuality’, her integrationist Christology, her understanding of the motherhood of Christ, and her particular use of triadic patterning.
The final chapter will discuss the texts’ presentation of contemplation with particular analysis of how certain foundational paradigms govern the principal signs deployed by the authors.
In each chapter I shall discuss the texts, paying particular attention to semiosis pertinent to the authors’ understanding of the self. These semiotic readings are a form of necessary preliminary analysis that must precede wider theological considerations. The relation between contemplative theology and systematic theology is beyond the bounds of this study. However, such discussion, if presuming to include the witness of contemplative texts, must be grounded in a thorough understanding of what and how the texts signify, what might be called semiotic approaches. For contemplative theology to function fully within a systematic theology, the great contemplative witnesses must be read closely. It is this close reading, this approach, that I shall attempt in this study.11



Notes
1. Although there is warranted doubt, which I shall discuss in chapter 2, whether A Treatise of the Study of Wisdom called Benjamin and The Discretion of Spirits are indeed translated by the Cloud author, they are included in this study because they have, from medieval MS traditions up to Phyllis Hodgson’s first editions of the texts, been included in the Cloud group. They further share common subject matter, and in the case of Benjamin provide an interesting ‘link’ between the theologies of Walter Hilton and the Cloud author. However, for the sake of convenience I shall in this introduction refer to Walter Hilton, the Cloud author and Julian of Norwich as ‘the three authors’.
2. See J.P.H. Clark ‘Late Fourteenth-Century Theology and the English Contemplative Tradition’, MMTE V, 1992, pp3-5.
3. See Joy Russel-Smith ‘Walter Hilton and a Tract in Defence of the Veneration of Images’, Dominican Studies, 7, 1954, pp205-211.
4. For a summary of the debate and the suggestion of the latter identity see David Knowles The English Mystical Tradition, London, 1961, pp68-70. See further Phyllis Hodgson (ed.), The Cloud of Unknowing, EETS (OS 218), Oxford UP, 1944, plxxxiii, and James Walsh (trans.), The Cloud of Unknowing, CWS, Paulist Press, 1981, p2 n4.
5. The Book of Margery Kempe, EETS (OS 212), Oxford UP, 1940, p42f.
6. See Marion Glasscoe, English Medieval Mystics, Longman, London, 1993, pp215-216, and Benedicta Ward ‘Lady Julian of Norwich’, The English Religious Tradition and the Genius of Anglicanism, ed. Geoffrey Rowell, Ikon, Wantage, 1992, pp48-52.
7. The phrase comes from Professor James Barr and refers to ‘illegitimately’ reading one theological system by way of another. For example, interpreting the theology the Gospel according to St John by the writings of St Paul. See James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford UP, 1961, p218, cf. p222, ‘illegitimate identity transfer’.
8. Particularly Phyllis Hodgson, Edmund Colledge, James Walsh, and John Clark in the extensive footnoting in the editions cited in the bibliography.
9. Kevin Hart, The Trespass of the Sign, Cambridge UP, 1989, p7.
10. The form of semiotic metalanguage that I shall be using in this study will be one ultimately derived from Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (1916), trans. Wade Baskin, Fontana, London, 1974, as developed by Roland Barthes in ‘Myth Today’, Mythologies (1957), trans. Annette Lavers, Paladin, London, 1972, and Elements of Semiology (1964), trans. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith, Jonathan Cape, London, 1967.
Any particular word, or linguistic sign consists of a signifier (signifiant) and a signified (signifié) which correspond, roughly speaking, to graphic or phonic expression and content, that is, form and meaning. The sign is the correlation of the signifier and signified.
Syntagmatic analysis deals with the sequential order of signs, and paradigmatic analysis deals with the signifying process of the individual sign.
A sign on a plane of denotation can act as the signifier for a connoted plane: ‘a connoted system is a system whose plane of expression is itself constituted by a signifying system’, Roland Barthes, Elements of Semiology, p90. The precise semiological vocabulary here is, the meaning that constitutes the sign on the plane of denotation is the form that constitutes the signifier that connotes a signified concept. This process is the signification of the sign.
A further, though unrelated, point regarding terminology should perhaps be made here over my use of ungendered personal pronouns and possessives. Rather than use the gender specific ‘he’, I shall, even with singular nouns, use the plural form ‘they’. This will be done to minimalize unnecessary male bias. This is by no means a recent practice: ‘However, a feeling of awkwardness with this use of "he" is not new. The Oxford English Dictionary gives old examples of "they" (1526) and "them" (1742) used in the singular to avoid the male association of "he". "God send everyone their heart’s desire" is from Shakespeare. Despite the protest of grammarians this usage has continued to be strong...’ (Making Women Visible, A report by the Liturgical Commission of the General Synod of the Church of England, GS 859, Church House Publishing, London, 1988, p17)
11. Two parts of this study derive from my earlier article ‘Reflecting Christ: the Role of the Flesh in Walter Hilton and Julian of Norwich’, MMTE V, 1992, pp17-37. The derived passages are specifically to be found on: pp16-17, 21-23, 26-28, 54-60, and 157-162.